I need your views

Chuckles wrote:


I should have also explained that we only call each other brother and sister during church, or at a church activity. And those under 18 usually only call those over 18 brother or sister. While those over 18 call both those under and over brother or sister. It's kind of complicated, really. ;)

That made me cringe lol. When your a catholic you have to study for a few years to become just a brother.

Thats because the Catholic Church is evil.

Anyone who has a few minutes to spare, please listen to this, but you Rot, I ask you to listen to this before any further discussion:
http://lds.org/conference/sessions/display/0,5239,23-1-1117,00.html
Scroll down to the Sunday Afternoon Session, and then click on the MP3/Listen Button next to the very first speaker, Jeffrey R. Holland.

I'm not meaning to convert or offend, if for some unknown reason you think I'm trying to do either, just please, listen to it.

Thanks guys.

Chuckles wrote: :Blink: That's messed up!

You can understand, then, my reserve concerning what occurs when one leaves the Mormon church.

Chuckles wrote:They were some hardcore punks back then, ;)

Ya. Never really understood where they got half their doctrine from back then, but then, they've gone back on most of the confusing stuff, so...

Chuckles wrote:No, I think we allowed them to, but the men couldn't receive the priesthood until the seventies, which I still have no idea why, I'm one of the biggest "everyone's equal" guys you'll find.

Exclusion from priesthood and from temple ceremonies, until the Living Prophet changed it based on a revelation from God (that is to say, one of the roles of the Church President is to change Mormon doctrine).

Chuckles wrote:I've always been taught he used the "magical glasses", and, we didn't change our doctrine because these were never recovered. The Brass Plates on which were the writings Joseph Smith translated were never recovered either, even though they were seen by more than a few people. To put this in a religious way: the brass plates were never meant to be a museum item, Joseph Smith didn't keep them. If I remember right, he gave them to Angel Moroni, and they were taken to heaven. I'm 100% sure we didn't change to a bag of magical rocks.

Ah, here we are. It was a hat containing a seer stone. Can't find any references to the magic glasses on Wikipedia anymore, either.

Chuckles wrote:Haha, I know I wouldn't get put up for adoption if I chose to leave the church.

If you're referring to my ex-Jehova's Witness friend who was disowned by his family, he wasn't put up for adoption. He was just kicked out of the house. One of the pastors at his new church took him in and legally adopted him after that.

Chuckles wrote:But yet, trying to prove religion with science, shows that your faith is false or is dwindling.

That's not actually true. Science's foundation is in the church. People figured, since we believe in a lawful God who created a lawful universe, then things should be observable and repeatable via experimentation.

Chuckles wrote:No everything can be proved by science, especially if there is a god.

Not everything, but this doesn't mean that science should be completely ignored, even in cases of religion. Especially things as simple as the one scientific fact I brought up. Furthermore, science is hardly the basis of my argument here. The primary basis is observed history. That is to say, the Book of Mormon contradicts what we know to be absolute fact based on the recordings of every single European traveler to have set feet in the new world prior to colonization and write about it.

Chuckles wrote:I'm not forgetting the facts and that it is improbable that these battles ever happened unless some divine person help with the clean up job, if you will.

But the question is, why would a divine being erase archeological evidence of things like this? And why not any of the stuff mentioned in the Bible? Why just the stuff in the Book of Mormon?

Chuckles wrote:But yet, when did Archaeologists wake up and say "I'm going to disprove Mormonism today". Was it before the Church bought Cumorah?

Well, they didn't really wake up and say that. Rather, archeologists have been studying North and Central America for ages, and some happened to learn that there was a faith, Mormonism, that directly contradicted their findings. The archeological findings of there not being horses, steel weapons, or coins prior to European settlers dates back to before Joseph Smith.

Chuckles wrote:So that takes care of the bodies. Many times in history, swords and armor from dead comrades/foes have been taken for future use, free supplies, I guess. I'm guessing if anyone ever finds evidence of these weapons, it'll be a big stockpile of them. But, in my religious views, I guess the simplest answer is divine intervention. Though I know you'll tire and void my arguments where I simply say: "divine intervention". So, don't take that for my answer here.

Actually, it is very common that armor and weapons are left on the battlefield, primarily because often times, if you were dead, your armor was likely useless and your weapon broken. In all recorded history, there has been archeological evidence of battles. It is simply impossible to completely clean up a battle of this scale to the point of undetectability without divine help, and we again ask the question why.

Chuckles wrote:Ah yes, I remember now. The conquistadors also brought deadly diseases that the Southern Americans didn't have immunities to, if I remember anything from history.

Correct.

Chuckles wrote:Which makes sense, as they didn't waste a single thing when killing buffalo, etc...

Indeed.

Chuckles wrote:Hm, it's funny. I've never asked that question, specifically in church. So I don't have a from-the-teacher answer. But, I guess those who have gone to heaven. To put it simply. But I also believe there are three kingdoms of glory (or heavens), so I don't know if you can only be considered an angel if you go to the highest (the Celestial Kingdom). To tell you the truth, I don't know exactly how to say.

Something to find out, then. Because if men become gods, I'm quite curious what angels would be. Demigods, perhaps?

Chuckles wrote:And we know he is not the first god how? Only those who have died know these simple truths we crave to know. I don't know if he was human once just like us, or he is the one and only. I simply don't know.

Well, from what I can tell, Joseph Smith taught that God is an exalted man, and thus, since Mormonism teaches that the creation in Genesis is only of this local solar system, that God must have come from some other planet somewhere. "As man is now, God once was."

Chuckles wrote:I should have also explained that we only call each other brother and sister during church, or at a church activity. And those under 18 usually only call those over 18 brother or sister. While those over 18 call both those under and over brother or sister. It's kind of complicated, really. ;)

And beyond the point.

Chuckles wrote:Anyone who has a few minutes to spare, please listen to this, but you Rot, I ask you to listen to this before any further discussion:
http://lds.org/conference/sessions/display/0,5239,23-1-1117,00.html
Scroll down to the Sunday Afternoon Session, and then click on the MP3/Listen Button next to the very first speaker, Jeffrey R. Holland.

I'm not meaning to convert or offend, if for some unknown reason you think I'm trying to do either, just please, listen to it.

Thanks guys.

From what I can tell, this sermon is basically saying that since Joseph Smith died without blaspheming the name of Mormon, it must be true. Not really a compelling argument. I mean, did Muhammad die blaspheming the Quran? I suppose this means that Islam is true, per this argument, as well. Not to mention that pretty much every author of the New Testament was martyred, and did not blaspheme the Bible, specifically Paul, who wrote "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed (Galations 1:." or John of Patmos who wrote "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (Revelation 22:18-19)." Like I said, this argument is not a very compelling one. I'm not even sure we have historical records that back up the claim that Joseph Smith did not blaspheme Mormonism before dying, but even if he did not, this argument is hardly something worth pausing a debate for.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Chuckles wrote:Hm, it's funny. I've never asked that question, specifically in church. So I don't have a from-the-teacher answer. But, I guess those who have gone to heaven. To put it simply. But I also believe there are three kingdoms of glory (or heavens), so I don't know if you can only be considered an angel if you go to the highest (the Celestial Kingdom). To tell you the truth, I don't know exactly how to say.

Something to find out, then. Because if men become gods, I'm quite curious what angels would be. Demigods, perhaps?

Junior partners?
Employees of the month?
(God forbid) Temps?

Rotaretilbo wrote:

You can understand, then, my reserve concerning what occurs when one leaves the Mormon church.

Yet, to judge a whole religion from one guy looking through someone's trash?

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Ah, here we are. It was a hat containing a seer stone. Can't find any references to the magic glasses on Wikipedia anymore, either.

Normally, I do consider wikipedia an acceptable source, I can't here: As Elder Jeffrey R. Holland stated in that talk I linked above, the Mormon Church is one of the churches in the world that people will not rest unless they believe they've disproved us (why though?). Wikipedia, as I'm sure this is needless to type, can be edited by anyone. In a world where there are more people trying to prove the religion wrong, or steer people away than not, I can not see this as an acceptable source. "Magical glasses" are what I've been taught all my life, including recently, I'm pretty sure it hasn't been changed.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

If you're referring to my ex-Jehova's Witness friend who was disowned by his family, he wasn't put up for adoption. He was just kicked out of the house. One of the pastors at his new church took him in and legally adopted him after that.

:Blink: I didn't know that had happened to one of your friends, I didn't mean anything by it, except that my family wouldn't.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
Not everything, but this doesn't mean that science should be completely ignored, even in cases of religion. Especially things as simple as the one scientific fact I brought up. Furthermore, science is hardly the basis of my argument here. The primary basis is observed history.

You're right, science shouldn't be ignored. But if we do believe that a superior being made these laws, shouldn't we also believe he should be able to break them for his own purposes? Ah yes, that was poor wording on my part, observed history, I mean.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

But the question is, why would a divine being erase archeological evidence of things like this? And why not any of the stuff mentioned in the Bible? Why just the stuff in the Book of Mormon?

I thought you'd never ask
Well, let's see here: Many different religions believe in the bible while as only one I know of (I guess two, if you count FLDS) believe in the the Book of Mormon. Trials test self, being able to still believe what you believe while the evidence against you may seem catastrophic at times could just be another trial we were meant to have down here. I guess I have more to write if you want, but I'm sick right now and don't want to delve into the subject...

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Well, they didn't really wake up and say that. Rather, archeologists have been studying North and Central America for ages, and some happened to learn that there was a faith, Mormonism, that directly contradicted their findings. The archeological findings of there not being horses, steel weapons, or coins prior to European settlers dates back to before Joseph Smith.

Columbus sailed the ocean blue, in 1492, though he didn't really find the main continent of America, I guess...
Before 1492, however, none know what happened in America. I think the only ones who do are the Native Americans of old, which if they had stories, would probably be changed and exaggerated to some degree. Yet, they're pretty much wiped out now Some crazy things may have happened here. I don't know. And I know that while Archaeologists can gather certain clues from the land, yet we don't know if something unpredictable and untracable happened here. Improbable? Yes. Impossible? No. 1000 years is a LONG time.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Actually, it is very common that armor and weapons are left on the battlefield, primarily because often times, if you were dead, your armor was likely useless and your weapon broken. In all recorded history, there has been archeological evidence of battles. It is simply impossible to completely clean up a battle of this scale to the point of undetectability without divine help, and we again ask the question why.

Yes, whole battles cannot be cleaned up. But when the dead were collected, they weren't taken out of their armor. Though not every body was collected, I'm sure a majority of them would be.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Something to find out, then. Because if men become gods, I'm quite curious what angels would be. Demigods, perhaps?

Those who are in Heaven until the Millenium/Second coming? Then, if they were good enough, then, they can become gods?

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Well, from what I can tell, Joseph Smith taught that God is an exalted man, and thus, since Mormonism teaches that the creation in Genesis is only of this local solar system, that God must have come from some other planet somewhere. "As man is now, God once was."

And there we go! :Dance:
Bahaha, he turns from becoming perfect, to becoming God.

Rotaretilbo wrote: Old Joe Smith didn't know jack shit about history, it would seem.

This line is the main reason I posted the link and that I post everything below this in the post. I'm not mad about the manner you posted it in. But with this statement you imply that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, and made the whole religion up.
Let's get started.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
From what I can tell, this sermon is basically saying that since Joseph Smith died without blaspheming the name of Mormon, it must be true. Not really a compelling argument. I mean, did Muhammad die blaspheming the Quran? I suppose this means that Islam is true, per this argument, as well. Not to mention that pretty much every author of the New Testament was martyred, and did not blaspheme the Bible...Like I said, this argument is not a very compelling one. I'm not even sure we have historical records that back up the claim that Joseph Smith did not blaspheme Mormonism before dying, but even if he did not, this argument is hardly something worth pausing a debate for.

Now we get into "proving" my religion with a very well-known science: Pshycology.

The point isn't that he didn't blaspheme the Church, the point is he still practiced the teachings and found comfort in the Book of Mormon. According to the science of pshycology, the human mind is unmethodically and crazy, yet totally predicatable in the way that. Thing a happens to person b in x situation, person b does responds by y.

Joseph and Hyrum Smith were sent to Carthage Jail for treason (I believe). Because the only two crimes back in that time that could send someone to jail without the chance of bail were treason and murder. With meaningfully incomplete investigations, Joseph Smith was sent to jail quite a few times. They knew they would be killed here, but yet, they kept praying and reading their scriptures like normal.

Joseph Smith bore his testimony to the guards that were holding them I think only a couple days before he was martyred. We know he did not blaspheme the church and we know that he kept following and living its teachings until he died because two men were sent to Carthage Jail with Joseph and Hyrum, and they both survived the mob attack.

About the bible prophets not blaspheming, doesn't the LDS Church also believe the bible is true (as long as it is translated correctly)?

Here's something else to think about: In the front of the Book of Mormon there are three men who write about how they saw and angel and they signed their names. All three of them left the church, why? I don't know. I do know that two of them came back, and the one who didn't even hired a lawyer when he was old and had a legal document written that said he saw what he said he saw in the couple of paragraphs written called the Testimony of Three Witnesses. None of the men ever denied the Church or the teachings, even when they had left the chruch. Why would they do that, Rot?

Chuckles, it is likely that Joe Smith and the others who knew the truth (this is assuming that it is not true, which i do not personally believe) wanted permanent fame. He is now remembered by thousands of people, if he was enough of an attention seeker as to invent a new religion, it would be his death wish. The other three wouldn't want to go back on their word, and suffer embarrassment and hatred, and if one of them did go back on his word, it could undoubtedly be excused somehow by the Mormon Church.

Wait? Assuming what it is not true?

Chuckles wrote:Wait? Assuming what it is not true?

Mormanism.

I'm playing devil's advocate, so to speak, but i'm not mormon.

Sure, I guess, you have a point there. But if it truly was Joseph Smith's churhc, wouldn't the mobsters have actually accomplished what they wanted to back in Carthage and end the church. Since if it was the church he started, it would've died with him.

I'm not saying that the idea doesn't make sense, but how would Joseph even know if his name would be known a decade from them?

Chuckles wrote:Yet, to judge a whole religion from one guy looking through someone's trash?

It isn't the only instance, just the most easily verifiable.

Chuckles wrote:Normally, I do consider wikipedia an acceptable source, I can't here: As Elder Jeffrey R. Holland stated in that talk I linked above, the Mormon Church is one of the churches in the world that people will not rest unless they believe they've disproved us (why though?). Wikipedia, as I'm sure this is needless to type, can be edited by anyone. In a world where there are more people trying to prove the religion wrong, or steer people away than not, I can not see this as an acceptable source. "Magical glasses" are what I've been taught all my life, including recently, I'm pretty sure it hasn't been changed.

Something as big as this particular wiki page would certainly be accurate. If it were vandalized and the Magical Glasses should be there, the vandalism would be gone within seconds. The only kind of vandalism that lasts is on obscure pages.

Chuckles wrote: :Blink: I didn't know that had happened to one of your friends, I didn't mean anything by it, except that my family wouldn't.

No worries.

Chuckles wrote:You're right, science shouldn't be ignored. But if we do believe that a superior being made these laws, shouldn't we also believe he should be able to break them for his own purposes? Ah yes, that was poor wording on my part, observed history, I mean.

God can certainly break these laws, but why would he break the laws in such a way as to make the Book of Mormon less verifiable but not do the same to the Bible?

Chuckles wrote:I thought you'd never ask
Well, let's see here: Many different religions believe in the bible while as only one I know of (I guess two, if you count FLDS) believe in the the Book of Mormon. Trials test self, being able to still believe what you believe while the evidence against you may seem catastrophic at times could just be another trial we were meant to have down here. I guess I have more to write if you want, but I'm sick right now and don't want to delve into the subject...

I'm not sure I fully understand what you're saying. There are several religions which believe in the Bible, but aside from the major two, Protestants and Catholics, all other religions only believe in the Bible when it is convenient. Whenever the Bible directly contradicts the Quran, the Book of Mormon, etc, the newer books are considered more accurate than the Bible. And that still doesn't explain why God would erase all evidence of the Book of Mormon, but not the Bible, since the Mormons believe in the Bible too.

Chuckles wrote:Columbus sailed the ocean blue, in 1492, though he didn't really find the main continent of America, I guess...
Before 1492, however, none know what happened in America.

Technically speaking, the Vikings beat Columbus here, but not the point.

Chuckles wrote:I think the only ones who do are the Native Americans of old, which if they had stories, would probably be changed and exaggerated to some degree. Yet, they're pretty much wiped out now Some crazy things may have happened here. I don't know. And I know that while Archaeologists can gather certain clues from the land, yet we don't know if something unpredictable and untracable happened here. Improbable? Yes. Impossible? No. 1000 years is a LONG time.

That doesn't explain the happenings when Europeans did arrive. There were no horses. Not just that, but the natives had never seen or even heard of an animal such as the horse before. It was completely foreign to them. It isn't like horses suddenly all died out at once, because then the natives would have been at least somewhat familiar with them.

And we know there were know steel weapons either. The Natives used stone and flint weapons. Why would they stop using steel weapons suddenly and revert back to the cruder, less effective weapons of old?

Chuckles wrote:Yes, whole battles cannot be cleaned up. But when the dead were collected, they weren't taken out of their armor. Though not every body was collected, I'm sure a majority of them would be.

Do you realize how long it would take to collect the dead in a battle where millions died? And since one side was completely wiped out, who picked up their dead? This just doesn't add up. Even in more modern wars like World War I and World War II, evidence of battles were apparent long afterwards.

Chuckles wrote:Those who are in Heaven until the Millenium/Second coming? Then, if they were good enough, then, they can become gods?

And what of the angels there before men?

Chuckles wrote:And there we go! :Dance:
Bahaha, he turns from becoming perfect, to becoming God.

But he is not as perfect as the gods that were over him. It is a continual process of becoming more perfect. And this point was more to do with God being from another planet.

Chuckles wrote:This line is the main reason I posted the link and that I post everything below this in the post. I'm not mad about the manner you posted it in. But with this statement you imply that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, and made the whole religion up.
Let's get started.

Well, if we don't assume Mormonism is true, then yes, Joseph Smith would be the author of the Book of Mormon, even if he didn't physically write it but rather dictated it to others.

Chuckles wrote:Now we get into "proving" my religion with a very well-known science: Pshycology.

This should be good.

Chuckles wrote:The point isn't that he didn't blaspheme the Church, the point is he still practiced the teachings and found comfort in the Book of Mormon. According to the science of pshycology, the human mind is unmethodically and crazy, yet totally predicatable in the way that. Thing a happens to person b in x situation, person b does responds by y.

Joseph and Hyrum Smith were sent to Carthage Jail for treason (I believe). Because the only two crimes back in that time that could send someone to jail without the chance of bail were treason and murder. With meaningfully incomplete investigations, Joseph Smith was sent to jail quite a few times. They knew they would be killed here, but yet, they kept praying and reading their scriptures like normal.

Joseph Smith bore his testimony to the guards that were holding them I think only a couple days before he was martyred. We know he did not blaspheme the church and we know that he kept following and living its teachings until he died because two men were sent to Carthage Jail with Joseph and Hyrum, and they both survived the mob attack.

But this is true for many religions. All it means as that, by this time, Joseph Smith was convinced that the Book of Mormon was true. Convincing one's self that something is true is not only not very difficult, but well documented within the realms of psychology.

Chuckles wrote:About the bible prophets not blaspheming, doesn't the LDS Church also believe the bible is true (as long as it is translated correctly)?

Only when it is convenient for them. The Bible is the most well documented book in history. We have copies of the Bible older than Homer's great epics. Any mistranslations are so minor in nature as to be inconsequential. Claiming that the parts of the Bible that disagree with the Book of Mormon are just mistranslations is just a cop out.

Chuckles wrote:Here's something else to think about: In the front of the Book of Mormon there are three men who write about how they saw and angel and they signed their names. All three of them left the church, why? I don't know. I do know that two of them came back, and the one who didn't even hired a lawyer when he was old and had a legal document written that said he saw what he said he saw in the couple of paragraphs written called the Testimony of Three Witnesses. None of the men ever denied the Church or the teachings, even when they had left the chruch. Why would they do that, Rot?

Galatians 1 wrote:⁸But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

The Apostle Paul seems to disagree with you, Chuckles.

Chuckles wrote:Sure, I guess, you have a point there. But if it truly was Joseph Smith's churhc, wouldn't the mobsters have actually accomplished what they wanted to back in Carthage and end the church. Since if it was the church he started, it would've died with him.

I'm not saying that the idea doesn't make sense, but how would Joseph even know if his name would be known a decade from them?

That's like saying that Islam should have died with Mohammed. Killing a religion's primary leader doesn't just kill the religion. Often times, martyrdom of a religious leader strengthens the others' resolve.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Something as big as this particular wiki page would certainly be accurate. If it were vandalized and the Magical Glasses should be there, the vandalism would be gone within seconds. The only kind of vandalism that lasts is on obscure pages.

Unless, the majority of users working on the page are trying to discredit Mormonism, then then those who actually wanted to put reliable information, wouldn't stand a chance trying to edit it. I'm now going to take a look at the page, just in case there is some misunderstanding.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

God can certainly break these laws, but why would he break the laws in such a way as to make the Book of Mormon less verifiable but not do the same to the Bible?

I hate to sound religious here, but, God could've made this just another test. Maybe he's trying to test those who have felt the spirit in their lives by having a couple facts not add up. There are also many others who could've answered these historical fact question better than I, perhaps they could have better info within the boundaries of "No Divine Intervention". To put it simply. God made another trial for us, if you can persevere through people telling you what to believe is crap, you've grown stronger.


[quote="Rotaretilbo"

Technically speaking, the Vikings beat Columbus here, but not the point.
[/quote] But we don't really have any Vikings to tell us what happened in those many, many years.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

That doesn't explain the happenings when Europeans did arrive. There were no horses. Not just that, but the natives had never seen or even heard of an animal such as the horse before. It was completely foreign to them. It isn't like horses suddenly all died out at once, because then the natives would have been at least somewhat familiar with them.

And we know there were know steel weapons either. The Natives used stone and flint weapons. Why would they stop using steel weapons suddenly and revert back to the cruder, less effective weapons of old?

But no one living on this Earth could tell us what weather and historical events happened in that time period, I think neither of us have a very valid argument here.

[quote=Rotaretilbo"]

Do you realize how long it would take to collect the dead in a battle where millions died? And since one side was completely wiped out, who picked up their dead? This just doesn't add up. Even in more modern wars like World War I and World War II, evidence of battles were apparent long afterwards. [/quote]
They possibly could've just spread fire through the land, though I really have no proof for or against that. I don't know what exactly what happened, but then again, neither of us do.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

And what of the angels there before men?

Huh? Are you talking about those who die before others?

Rotaretilbo wrote:

But he is not as perfect as the gods that were over him. It is a continual process of becoming more perfect. And this point was more to do with God being from another planet.

And why not? Why can't he be as perfect as the gods before him?

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Well, if we don't assume Mormonism is true, then yes, Joseph Smith would be the author of the Book of Mormon, even if he didn't physically write it but rather dictated it to others.

But if we do, he is only the translater. There's really no winner that can be had in this certain argument.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

But this is true for many religions. All it means as that, by this time, Joseph Smith was convinced that the Book of Mormon was true. Convincing one's self that something is true is not only not very difficult, but well documented within the realms of psychology.

So, if you knew you were about to die, would you start think about riding unicorns and dragons? Or flying a broomstick?

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Only when it is convenient for them. The Bible is the most well documented book in history. We have copies of the Bible older than Homer's great epics. Any mistranslations are so minor in nature as to be inconsequential. Claiming that the parts of the Bible that disagree with the Book of Mormon are just mistranslations is just a cop out.

And claiming you're a baptist when it's convenient for your argument, and then saying you aren't much of one when you don't want me to know some of your exact biases isn't a cop out?

Chuckles wrote:Here's something else to think about: In the front of the Book of Mormon there are three men who write about how they saw and angel and they signed their names. All three of them left the church, why? I don't know. I do know that two of them came back, and the one who didn't even hired a lawyer when he was old and had a legal document written that said he saw what he said he saw in the couple of paragraphs written called the Testimony of Three Witnesses. None of the men ever denied the Church or the teachings, even when they had left the chruch. Why would they do that, Rot?

[quote=Rotaretilbo"]

The Apostle Paul seems to disagree with you, Chuckles. [/quote] I see nothing that has to do with my above writing?



I'm getting tired of trying to justify myself from someone who won't give in to my points, mostly because neither of us have enough evidence to prove them.

I belive in something, you believe in something different. We won't see eye-to-eye about a religion unless one of us converts.

I'll whole-heartedly continue this discussion but the above line is really all that needs to be said.

But now, let me ask you something, Rot. Why is it that everybody hates Mormons? Why is it that some are very public about equality and freedom of religion criticize and try to denounce the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? (And to be contrary to your stereo-types, my ward has very happy and church-committed members, happy leaders who aren't crazy, and a strong family-sense)

My first thought is jealousy, as is this is why it's now a bad thing to be smart, and everybody hates the kids with a lot of friends. But I don't know. Why is it, Rot?

I did History project on Individualism and Communalism this week and last.

I've just gotta say, Mormons are a lot cooler than some other groups I studied.

Chuckles wrote:Unless, the majority of users working on the page are trying to discredit Mormonism, then then those who actually wanted to put reliable information, wouldn't stand a chance trying to edit it. I'm now going to take a look at the page, just in case there is some misunderstanding.

You misunderestimate () Wikipedia. There are enough people there who don't care about either side as long as the page is accurate and unbiased that very few pages remain biased, and those that due are juts small pages that slip under the radar.

Chuckles wrote:I hate to sound religious here, but, God could've made this just another test. Maybe he's trying to test those who have felt the spirit in their lives by having a couple facts not add up. There are also many others who could've answered these historical fact question better than I, perhaps they could have better info within the boundaries of "No Divine Intervention". To put it simply. God made another trial for us, if you can persevere through people telling you what to believe is crap, you've grown stronger.

But why hasn't God ever do this before? Why exist for thousands of years using his people as an example of his existence, performing great miracles and whatnot, and then hundreds of years after Christianity has spread, he reveals himself to a man, tells him all these things, but doesn't mention that he purposely erased all historical and scientific evidence that might possibly back these things up, just as a test of faith? There is a difference between testing a man's faith and erasing all evidence that could possibly back up a religion's non-spiritual claims.

Chuckles wrote:But we don't really have any Vikings to tell us what happened in those many, many years.

Well, the Vikings did write epic ballads about their travels to North America, but they spent most of their time in Newfoundland and Greenland, so they likely never would have come into contact with natives anyway.

Chuckles wrote:But no one living on this Earth could tell us what weather and historical events happened in that time period, I think neither of us have a very valid argument here.

While no one alive can tell us what the weather or historical events based on personal experience, these things have been documented. The weather maybe not to the point of being able to give the weather on any particular day, but this is hardly relevant. If there were or had ever been horses in North America prior to the arrival of the conquistadors, the natives would not have thought that horses were some sort of monster that these apparent gods road upon. And if the natives had steel weapons, they would not have reverted to flint and stone.

[quote=Chuckles"]They possibly could've just spread fire through the land, though I really have no proof for or against that. I don't know what exactly what happened, but then again, neither of us do.[/quote]

Last time I checked, a forest/brush fire would not erase evidence such as metal armor and weapons.

Chuckles wrote:Huh? Are you talking about those who die before others?

From what I can recall, there were angels before the creation of the Earth. Further, I believe there is a passage in one of Paul's epistles (1 Corinthians 6:3) saying that saints will be judges over angels. But if the saints are angels, then why would saints of Corinth be special and get to judge over other saints, considering that Corinth was having problems judging over their own members?

Chuckles wrote:And why not? Why can't he be as perfect as the gods before him?

Will men then one day be as perfect as God himself?

Chuckles wrote:But if we do, he is only the translater. There's really no winner that can be had in this certain argument.

The point being that when arguing the validity of something, you cannot argue from the standpoint of assuming it is true, since the other person does not agree.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

But this is true for many religions. All it means as that, by this time, Joseph Smith was convinced that the Book of Mormon was true. Convincing one's self that something is true is not only not very difficult, but well documented within the realms of psychology.

So, if you knew you were about to die, would you start think about riding unicorns and dragons? Or flying a broomstick?

Chuckles wrote:And claiming you're a baptist when it's convenient for your argument, and then saying you aren't much of one when you don't want me to know some of your exact biases isn't a cop out?

I've been very open about me being a Baptist to only be technically true. I was raised Baptist, but there are some points in the denomination that I don't personally agree with, primarily in the dealing with other denominations. However, since I'm not particularly familiar with denominations that generally agree with Baptists but are less extreme about how right you have to be about every little thing to get to Heaven, I haven't really found myself a new denomination. Frankly, I don't know much of the difference between, say Methodists and Baptists, or...it's sad but I can't even really think of any other denominations except for Lutherans (which are effectively watered down Catholics), Catholics, and Jehovah's Witnesses (if you even count them as a denomination of Christianity).

And it is hardly a cop out, in the same sense, because I am not saying "I agree with this, except when I don't, and then I arbitrarily attribute it to mistranslations," but rather saying "I generally agree with the denomination I was raised in, but disagree on several points for various reasons."

Chuckles wrote:I see nothing that has to do with my above writing?

The Apostle Paul specifically states that if anyone, including an angel (such as the one that those three men claimed to have seen) comes and preaches anything other than the gospel that Jesus laid down and that his disciples were preaching, that person/angel was a liar and should be cursed.

I don't see how that doesn't have anything to do with the claim that three Mormon's claimed to see an angel but left the church and this behavior can only be explained by the Mormon Church being true.

Chuckles wrote:I'm getting tired of trying to justify myself from someone who won't give in to my points, mostly because neither of us have enough evidence to prove them.

I won't give in to your points because you've hardly offered me much. You've pretty much ignored my points about observed history and science by claiming that God would erase all evidence of the true sect of Christianity just to make it that much harder for people to join his faith, when all previous behavior of God seems to go contrary to this. You've ignored my points of the Bible and the Book of Mormon contradicting each other by claiming that they either don't, which, if you'd like, I can start whipping out specific examples, or that these contradictions are due to mistranslation, which I've already shown to not be true. To further your cause, you've built a weak case based on the ability to predict human behavior (something that is notoriously difficult to do), using false dichotomy as the primary support column for your argument. You've offered a few examples of people who honestly believed Mormonism who were key members of the church, and even offered a few guys who claimed to have seen an angel but left the church. I've countered these points by pointing out that pretty much every religion is this way, including religions like Islam, which you obviously don't believe to be true.

Chuckles wrote:I belive in something, you believe in something different. We won't see eye-to-eye about a religion unless one of us converts.

And I'm clearly too skeptical to convert, but if I can get you past logical fallacies, we might see things go the other way.

Chuckles wrote:I'll whole-heartedly continue this discussion but the above line is really all that needs to be said.

Fair enough.

Chuckles wrote:But now, let me ask you something, Rot. Why is it that everybody hates Mormons? Why is it that some are very public about equality and freedom of religion criticize and try to denounce the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? (And to be contrary to your stereo-types, my ward has very happy and church-committed members, happy leaders who aren't crazy, and a strong family-sense)

My first thought is jealousy, as is this is why it's now a bad thing to be smart, and everybody hates the kids with a lot of friends. But I don't know. Why is it, Rot?

Well, for one, you've got the belligerent atheists who hate all religion. They hate you and us. But then you've got us. While most denominations of Christianity tend to get along, it's because most of us have accepted that while we disagree on the interpretation of very minor passages of scripture not key to one's salvation, you guys have added a whole new Bible and heavily altered pretty much everything. From the stand point of Christians, Mormonism is a large bus that is much more eager to get people on board that is heading for the edge of a cliff. I don't know many Christians who think that Mormons should have their religious freedoms taken away, but we can't help but dislike the fact that a religion like your own, which seems perfectly harmless, is going to lead so many souls to Hell. From our stand point, it is like Satan's ultimate wet dream. A religion that is all about being nice and doing nice things that he doesn't have to do anything about to get into Hell. I might sound extreme here, but this is the bets explanation I can give for why most Christians are generally hostile towards Mormons.

Ah c'mon! I was nearly done with a reply when my computer freaked out on me...

I'll still reply, but don't expect it tonight, I'm sad. I was being so eloquent too.

I know the feeling. Back when I used to post at HWF, I'd write big ten page posts, and then IE would crash and I'd lose everything. I've started writing my posts in Notepad for safe keeping.

Haha! There are several mistakes in your multi-quoting ability, I must be wearing you down ;)

Okay, your name is starting to piss me off, I keep typing the l after the b, I'm just going to use Rot from now on...

Rot wrote:

But why hasn't God ever do this before? Why exist for thousands of years using his people as an example of his existence, performing great miracles and whatnot, and then hundreds of years after Christianity has spread, he reveals himself to a man, tells him all these things, but doesn't mention that he purposely erased all historical and scientific evidence that might possibly back these things up, just as a test of faith? There is a difference between testing a man's faith and erasing all evidence that could possibly back up a religion's non-spiritual claims.

I wouldn't go as far as saying he erased all. There are several predictions in the Book of Mormon after Joseph Smiths time that turned out to be true, I believe.

Rot wrote:

While no one alive can tell us what the weather or historical events based on personal experience, these things have been documented. The weather maybe not to the point of being able to give the weather on any particular day, but this is hardly relevant. If there were or had ever been horses in North America prior to the arrival of the conquistadors, the natives would not have thought that horses were some sort of monster that these apparent gods road upon. And if the natives had steel weapons, they would not have reverted to flint and stone.

Scenario 1: Another group of people comes from Canada or South America, they populate the west for a little, but do not spread East (where these battles are said to take place) until after these wars and until these people have died/nearly died out from wars/disease/etc... These groups of people could've been less inventive and not have had horses, whereas the horses in the East have long since died out.
Scenario 2: The survivors from the events of the Book of Mormon decide to pursue other interests, with a few generations, the skill of making steel is lost/forgotten. They also decide they don't like horses/horses were never allowed to breed without control, they decide to eradicate them/forget about them/don't care about them. Within a few generations, they are forgotten completely.
I have more if you want them, but it is NOT impossible to revert back to simpler weapons, and have no horses where they were present. You must have forgotten the theory of extinction by location.

Rot wrote:

Last time I checked, a forest/brush fire would not erase evidence such as metal armor and weapons.

Did I ever say it would? I merely placed that to provide another way people/weather events could speed up human/horse decomposition of these battles.

Rot wrote:

From what I can recall, there were angels before the creation of the Earth. Further, I believe there is a passage in one of Paul's epistles (1 Corinthians 6:3) saying that saints will be judges over angels. But if the saints are angels, then why would saints of Corinth be special and get to judge over other saints, considering that Corinth was having problems judging over their own members?

Yes, I do believe that we were all angels before we came down here, so I guess we could simply put it as those who are without a body. I don't have any more to say on this matter. For arguing what exactly angels are for the sake of arguing and adding more to a post is not worth arguing over.

Rot wrote:

Will men then one day be as perfect as God himself?

They have the chance to be. Why not?

Rot wrote:

The point being that when arguing the validity of something, you cannot argue from the standpoint of assuming it is true, since the other person does not agree.

The point being that when arguing the validity of something, you cannot argue from the standpoint of assuming it is not true, since the other person does not agree.

Chuckles wrote: So, if you knew you were about to die, would you start think about riding unicorns and dragons? Or flying a broomstick?

You don't have anything to say about this, yet include it in your post?

Rot wrote:

I've been very open about me being a Baptist to only be technically true. I was raised Baptist, but there are some points in the denomination that I don't personally agree with, primarily in the dealing with other denominations. However, since I'm not particularly familiar with denominations that generally agree with Baptists but are less extreme about how right you have to be about every little thing to get to Heaven, I haven't really found myself a new denomination.

Very open would be "I'm baptist Chuckles, we study other religions almost as much as we do our own, though I must admit, I don't agree with some of the finer ponts of my religion, so I'm only half-way commited." Yet, you did not include that when supplying the original information. You were open, but not very open.

Rot wrote:
And it is hardly a cop out, in the same sense, because I am not saying "I agree with this, except when I don't, and then I arbitrarily attribute it to mistranslations," but rather saying "I generally agree with the denomination I was raised in, but disagree on several points for various reasons."

But your various reasons is because you want every single detail to be explained and logical.

Rot wrote:

The Apostle Paul specifically states that if anyone, including an angel (such as the one that those three men claimed to have seen) comes and preaches anything other than the gospel that Jesus laid down and that his disciples were preaching, that person/angel was a liar and should be cursed.

Actually, in the Testimony of Three Witnesses, they claim an angel came down and showed them the brass plates, which I do believe is the gospel that Jesus laid down.

Rot wrote:

I don't see how that doesn't have anything to do with the claim that three Mormon's claimed to see an angel but left the church and this behavior can only be explained by the Mormon Church being true.

It has everything to do with it. Why would you hire lawyers to have it legally written that what you saw is true, even when you know you are old and dying and you aren't a member of the church that believes this? Why would none of these men ever deny what they saw, even when they were questioned about the matter when not a member of the church?

Rot wrote:

I won't give in to your points because you've hardly offered me much. You've pretty much ignored my points about observed history and science by claiming that God would erase all evidence of the true sect of Christianity just to make it that much harder for people to join his faith, when all previous behavior of God seems to go contrary to this. You've ignored my points of the Bible and the Book of Mormon contradicting each other by claiming that they either don't, which, if you'd like, I can start whipping out specific examples, or that these contradictions are due to mistranslation, which I've already shown to not be true. To further your cause, you've built a weak case based on the ability to predict human behavior (something that is notoriously difficult to do), using false dichotomy as the primary support column for your argument. You've offered a few examples of people who honestly believed Mormonism who were key members of the church, and even offered a few guys who claimed to have seen an angel but left the church. I've countered these points by pointing out that pretty much every religion is this way, including religions like Islam, which you obviously don't believe to be true.

And you've grown up learning about the other religions always with a hind-statement about "this isn't true because" or "this is crazy because". You have always learned about other religions with a bias, and a "counter-scripture" or two on hand. You have been bred to try to prove others wrong.

How dare you argue with me that what I believe isn't true when you have no problem with it other than you don't know what happened in the thousand years un-told about it the Book of Mormon, and because you don't think that whatever happened doesn't coincide with what we can believe to be true about the universe.

You have been questioning me this whole time, prove a higher being exists, and prove that he is doing what you believe he is doing. You have been jiving me to do what no one of this earth can do, give ABSOLUTE proof that what I believe is true. You have not been fair because you can not do this yourself, and no one of this earth can either. I can believe powerfully that I know this is true, but is it proof? To some yes, but not to you. Which to everything, is, if it's not plausible, it's not possible.

You dare say I've been ignoring your points, when all you've been trying to do is make me prove absolutely and ultimately the impossible.

Rot wrote:

And I'm clearly too skeptical to convert, but if I can get you past logical fallacies, we might see things go the other way.

No, I've had too many unique moments to be veered by a guy on the internet trying to tell me what happened in a 1000 year period, that he doesn't even know what happpened either.

Rot wrote:
From the stand point of Christians, Mormonism is a large bus that is much more eager to get people on board that is heading for the edge of a cliff. I don't know many Christians who think that Mormons should have their religious freedoms taken away, but we can't help but dislike the fact that a religion like your own, which seems perfectly harmless, is going to lead so many souls to Hell. From our stand point, it is like Satan's ultimate wet dream. A religion that is all about being nice and doing nice things that he doesn't have to do anything about to get into Hell. I might sound extreme here, but this is the bets explanation I can give for why most Christians are generally hostile towards Mormons.

So, they're pissy because we have missonaries who are more successful than theirs.
Oh yeah, I'll be sure to think of them going to heaven next time there is a disaster when our Church is one of the first on the scene and giving our time and money to help others, giving no regard for ourselves. While all other Christians are sitting in their church dreaming of how great heaven's going to be and laughing at all us Mormons sitting in Hell. Makes perfect sense.

You ask me to prove my religion is right. I ask you to prove it is wrong.

Chuckles wrote:I ask you to prove it is wrong.

They have a college football team (BYU) that's better than my favorite team (WY).

It must be wrong.


seriously though, I still love you Cheese... I know you aren't involved

Dang it BB...

I can't argue with that

Chuckles wrote:Haha! There are several mistakes in your multi-quoting ability, I must be wearing you down ;)

Okay, your name is starting to piss me off, I keep typing the l after the b, I'm just going to use Rot from now on...

You know that you can just copy paste the first open quote tag and paste it where it's needed. ;)

Chuckles wrote:I wouldn't go as far as saying he erased all. There are several predictions in the Book of Mormon after Joseph Smiths time that turned out to be true, I believe.

Such as? I'd like some examples, if you would.

Chuckles wrote:Scenario 1: Another group of people comes from Canada or South America, they populate the west for a little, but do not spread East (where these battles are said to take place) until after these wars and until these people have died/nearly died out from wars/disease/etc... These groups of people could've been less inventive and not have had horses, whereas the horses in the East have long since died out.

Except that the Book of Mormon seems to claim that while the battles take place on the East Coast, that the Jewish Native Americans spread across all of North and Central America. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure it specifically states that the Native Americans are the ancestors of the people in the Book of Mormon, so this argument is null.

Chuckles wrote:Scenario 2: The survivors from the events of the Book of Mormon decide to pursue other interests, with a few generations, the skill of making steel is lost/forgotten. They also decide they don't like horses/horses were never allowed to breed without control, they decide to eradicate them/forget about them/don't care about them. Within a few generations, they are forgotten completely.

You do realize that it doesn't take a handful of generations to completely forget something, right? I mean, we forgot how to make Greek fire over hundreds of generations, but we still know it existed. Native Americans would be the same way, except less likely to forget, as there is no reason they would ever stop using steel weapons in exchange for stone and flint weapons. Further, even if they stopped using horses, horses would have survived in some regions of the United States in wild herds. This was clearly not the case.

Chuckles wrote:I have more if you want them, but it is NOT impossible to revert back to simpler weapons, and have no horses where they were present. You must have forgotten the theory of extinction by location.

Except that there is no logical explanation for it. The primary reason technology is lost is when a civilization collapses, as was the case with Greek fire. Civilizations don't just randomly forget technological advances. The United States is never just going to forget about guns or that they ever existed and start using swords again in warfare. And even if we wanted to, it would take hundreds, even thousands of generations for us to completely forget guns.

Chuckles wrote:Did I ever say it would? I merely placed that to provide another way people/weather events could speed up human/horse decomposition of these battles.

But I've been pointing out weapons and armor for some time now. While bodies might not be present, there would still be evidence of battle, even after centuries.

Chuckles wrote:Yes, I do believe that we were all angels before we came down here, so I guess we could simply put it as those who are without a body. I don't have any more to say on this matter. For arguing what exactly angels are for the sake of arguing and adding more to a post is not worth arguing over.

Alright, so angels are then people before they take on worldly bodies? Then why are they so much more powerful than regular humans? Why do they seem to serve as servants to God? And what are the differences between Cherubim and Seraphim, if angels are just souls of unborn humans?

Chuckles wrote:They have the chance to be. Why not?

So you believe that it is possible to one day be equal to God, not as he is now, but as he will be then?

Chuckles wrote:The point being that when arguing the validity of something, you cannot argue from the standpoint of assuming it is not true, since the other person does not agree.

The difference here is that when you are defending somethings validity, using the assumption that it is true as evidence of it being true is circular reasoning. I am pointing out that if it is not true, then what occurred still makes sense. You are saying that because it is true, it is therefore true. See the difference?

Chuckles wrote:You don't have anything to say about this, yet include it in your post?

As I recall, I ignored that particular bit, because the argument is simply an appeal to ridicule.

Chuckles wrote:Very open would be "I'm baptist Chuckles, we study other religions almost as much as we do our own, though I must admit, I don't agree with some of the finer ponts of my religion, so I'm only half-way commited." Yet, you did not include that when supplying the original information. You were open, but not very open.

You misunderstand. In previous religious debates on this site, I have been very open about my beliefs. Because I have openly stated my specific beliefs so many times, I did not feel it necessary to repeat them in detail again. Even in this thread, I never stated "I am a Baptist," but rather "I was raised a Baptist," which is an important difference, because I am specifically avoiding calling myself a Baptist. When I do refer to my own religion, I always say that I am technically a Baptist.

Chuckles wrote:But your various reasons is because you want every single detail to be explained and logical.

Actually, I find Baptist dogma to be overly harsh, especially on the east coast. Baptists believe that everyone else is wrong, to the point where they believe that a handful of Christian denominations, like Catholics, aren't going to Heaven. Further, Baptists are very strict about the clothing you wear to church, and that sort of thing. In those regards, I tend to disagree. I'm also generally more open to metaphorical interpretations of specific parts of the Bible. I'm not committed wholely to a literal seven day creation or a metaphorical seven day creation, for example. I am open to either option, because the Bible is not clear cut on this particular thing, and because whether I believe in a literal or metaphorical seven days, the length of creation is not fundamental in my belief. What is fundamental is that I believe in creation by a higher being rather than gradual creation over billions of years with no higher being. I also disagree with Baptist interpretation of several prophecies. For example, I believe that the Prophecy Against Gog in Ezekiel is pre-Rapture, whereas Baptists believe it is post-Rapture.

So no, it isn't because I want every single detail to be explained and logical. The Bible has already done that for me. I simply disagree with little things here and there that differentiate Baptists with other denominations.

Chuckles wrote:Actually, in the Testimony of Three Witnesses, they claim an angel came down and showed them the brass plates, which I do believe is the gospel that Jesus laid down.

I don't think you understand. The Apostle Paul said that if anyone, even an angel, preached anything other than specifically what was covered in the Gospels, then they were lying. I'm not saying that an angel didn't come down and show these guys the Brass Plates. I'm just reminding you that Hell is populated by angels, too, and the Apostle Paul foresaw the possibility of demons trying to mislead people, and specifically warned against it.

Chuckles wrote:It has everything to do with it. Why would you hire lawyers to have it legally written that what you saw is true, even when you know you are old and dying and you aren't a member of the church that believes this? Why would none of these men ever deny what they saw, even when they were questioned about the matter when not a member of the church?

You don't seem to understand. You said that what I said had nothing to do with it, and I said that I didn't see how it didn't have to do with it, and you now said it has everything to do with it, which is contradicting yourself. For the rest of this, see my above response. I'm not saying there wasn't an angel, I'm just saying that the Bible specifically warns against believing angels who claim anything other than what is in the Bible itself.

Chuckles wrote:And you've grown up learning about the other religions always with a hind-statement about "this isn't true because" or "this is crazy because". You have always learned about other religions with a bias, and a "counter-scripture" or two on hand. You have been bred to try to prove others wrong.

On Sundays, perhaps, but on Monday through Firday, I was raised to look at things and decide for myself whether or not something is true. The Book of Mormon doesn't make sense. It clearly contradicts the Bible in many points, yet claims it believes in the Bible, when it is convenient.

Chuckles wrote:How dare you argue with me that what I believe isn't true when you have no problem with it other than you don't know what happened in the thousand years un-told about it the Book of Mormon, and because you don't think that whatever happened doesn't coincide with what we can believe to be true about the universe.

How dare I? You make it seem like my sole argument is that I don't know what happened. My point is that if the Book of Mormon is true, there would be evidence in history that supported it, just like the Bible, and if the Book of Mormon was true, it would not be contradicted so heavily by the Bible.

Chuckles wrote:You have been questioning me this whole time, prove a higher being exists, and prove that he is doing what you believe he is doing.

I don't need to prove mine exists, when I can just point out how poorly conceived the one you believe in is. God does not change. Why, then, does he seemingly erase all historical and archeological evidence of the Book of Mormon, to the point of erasing it from the memories of the people involved and pushing them back technologically, and then eradicating whole species in certain areas, when he did nothing of the like with Bible.

Chuckles wrote:You have been jiving me to do what no one of this earth can do, give ABSOLUTE proof that what I believe is true.

On the contrary. I am simply asking you to provide a shred of evidence that what you believe might be true, or to perhaps explain why there is a complete lack of evidence that supports your belief. The reason we can never prove or disprove that God exists is because we do not know how or where evidence of God would manifest. This is completely different with the Book of Mormon. We know exactly how and where evidence of the Book of Mormon would manifest, and we also know that it has not manifested. I don't ask for absolute proof. I ask for any evidence at all.

Chuckles wrote:You have not been fair because you can not do this yourself, and no one of this earth can either. I can believe powerfully that I know this is true, but is it proof? To some yes, but not to you. Which to everything, is, if it's not plausible, it's not possible.

But I am being fair, because I can provide hundreds of examples of the Bible being supported by historical and archeological evidence. The Bible is considered a historically accurate document when the super natural is ignored. The Book of Mormon is not.

Chuckles wrote:You dare say I've been ignoring your points, when all you've been trying to do is make me prove absolutely and ultimately the impossible.

Perhaps if you'd actually read my points, you'd know that this is not what I'm asking of you.

Chuckles wrote:No, I've had too many unique moments to be veered by a guy on the internet trying to tell me what happened in a 1000 year period, that he doesn't even know what happpened either.

Don't trust me. Trust the hundreds of thousands, even millions, of archeologists and historians and written historical documents which contradict what is said in the Book of Mormon.

Chuckles wrote:So, they're pissy because we have missonaries who are more successful than theirs.
Oh yeah, I'll be sure to think of them going to heaven next time there is a disaster when our Church is one of the first on the scene and giving our time and money to help others, giving no regard for ourselves. While all other Christians are sitting in their church dreaming of how great heaven's going to be and laughing at all us Mormons sitting in Hell. Makes perfect sense.

Were you even listening to what I said!? We aren't jealous of you! We're saddened because you're going to Hell. It is depressing to think about! There won't be any laughing in Heaven about all you Mormons! This isn't some big joke, Chuckles. Read my freaking posts before you stick your foot in your mouth!

Chuckles wrote:You ask me to prove my religion is right. I ask you to prove it is wrong.

Actually, I've asked you to simply support your religion with support, and I've already brought forward plenty of evidence which could prove your religion wrong.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
You know that you can just copy paste the first open quote tag and paste it where it's needed. ;)

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Such as? I'd like some examples, if you would.

2nd Nephi 25-27 (if I'm not accidentally leaving out a little)
Talking about the destruction of Jerusalem, not anything special, except it also mentions the exact time period that it was proven that Jerusalem was destroyed.
Talks about how it is built up again. As we both know this happened too, no biggie.
Talks about how a Book of Mormon will come forth. You may say this is just Joseph Smith trying to increase credibility, but it is one of the Isaiah chapters, I'll post the exact one next post.
Talks about how 3 witnesses will testify of the brass plates.

^ There's more, if you want. But that's just from the top of my head, and from a mere two chapters.

Also, in the D&C, I forget the sections (but will try to find out). Joseph Smith talks about a civil war to come, Soviet Union/communism (whatever) falling. And...a couple others I believe.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Furthermore, I'm pretty sure it specifically states that the Native Americans are the ancestors of the people in the Book of Mormon, so this argument is null.

Good to see you actually know what you're talking about

Rotaretilbo wrote:

You do realize that it doesn't take a handful of generations to completely forget something, right? I mean, we forgot how to make Greek fire over hundreds of generations, but we still know it existed. Native Americans would be the same way, except less likely to forget, as there is no reason they would ever stop using steel weapons in exchange for stone and flint weapons. Further, even if they stopped using horses, horses would have survived in some regions of the United States in wild herds. This was clearly not the case.

Ah...but what you don't know that archaeologists have found evidence of a type of mini-horse living in North America at this time. So they could know what a horse is, but still describe the animals that the conquistadors bring massive beasts, and finally get a name for them.

Rot wrote:

Except that there is no logical explanation for it. The primary reason technology is lost is when a civilization collapses, as was the case with Greek fire. Civilizations don't just randomly forget technological advances. The United States is never just going to forget about guns or that they ever existed and start using swords again in warfare. And even if we wanted to, it would take hundreds, even thousands of generations for us to completely forget guns.

But, if we want to. You can make a future generation completely oblivious to the fact that something was ever made. It takes a lot of work, yes, but it is possible. Even more so if God truly wants this done.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

But I've been pointing out weapons and armor for some time now. While bodies might not be present, there would still be evidence of battle, even after centuries.

Just so I know you aren't hiding behind some Baptist minister telling you this. I want you to give me exact scriptural quotes from the Book of Mormon telling that their weapons were made of steel. And not necessarily

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Alright, so angels are then people before they take on worldly bodies? Then why are they so much more powerful than regular humans? Why do they seem to serve as servants to God? And what are the differences between Cherubim and Seraphim, if angels are just souls of unborn humans?

I promise I'll answer this later...I'm too tired right now to think much at all...I probably shouldn't even be typing a reply now.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

So you believe that it is possible to one day be equal to God, not as he is now, but as he will be then?

To quote you quoting scripture: "God does not change"

Rotaretilbo wrote:

The difference here is that when you are defending somethings validity, using the assumption that it is true as evidence of it being true is circular reasoning. I am pointing out that if it is not true, then what occurred still makes sense. You are saying that because it is true, it is therefore true. See the difference?

No I'm saying that things make sense if what I believe is true, is true. Therefore, I believe I'm perfectly fine in my wording.

Rot wrote:

As I recall, I ignored that particular bit, because the argument is simply an appeal to ridicule.

Effective, no? But why did you place it in your post if you had nothing to say?
[quote=”Rot”]
So no, it isn't because I want every single detail to be explained and logical. The Bible has already done that for me. I simply disagree with little things here and there that differentiate Baptists with other denominations. [/quote]
Fair enough, sounds good.


[quote=”Rot”]
You don't seem to understand. You said that what I said had nothing to do with it, and I said that I didn't see how it didn't have to do with it, and you now said it has everything to do with it, which is contradicting yourself. For the rest of this, see my above response. I'm not saying there wasn't an angel, I'm just saying that the Bible specifically warns against believing angels who claim anything other than what is in the Bible itself. [/quote] So…you’re saying the Book of Mormon is the work of the devil.
[quote=”Rot”]
On Sundays, perhaps, but on Monday through Firday, I was raised to look at things and decide for myself whether or not something is true. The Book of Mormon doesn't make sense. It clearly contradicts the Bible in many points, yet claims it believes in the Bible, when it is convenient. [/quote]You can’t have it both ways Rot. Either the biases you are told on Sunday affect your Monday-Saturday, or those you have made for yourself on Monday-Saturday affect you on Sunday.
Actually, we just believe different verses mean different things, kind of like you said you didn’t agree with how the Baptist church interprets certain verses.

[quote=”Rot”]
How dare I? You make it seem like my sole argument is that I don't know what happened. My point is that if the Book of Mormon is true, there would be evidence in history that supported it, just like the Bible, and if the Book of Mormon was true, it would not be contradicted so heavily by the Bible. [/quote] Your sole argument is pretending to know exactly what ancient people would do in a land that they knew nothing about in a time period we know nothing about.
[quote=”Rot”]
I don't need to prove mine exists, when I can just point out how poorly conceived the one you believe in is. God does not change. [/quote]
And there we have it. You have just proved you are insecure about your own beliefs because you feel you need to prove me and anyone else who doesn’t believe what you do wrong in any way possible. You don’t want to prove me wrong, you need to prove me wrong. Religion is not trying to prove others wrong, it’s believing in what you think is right.
I don’t know, you may not have joined another religion because you are picky about some details, don’t want to in the case that this religion is wrong, or some other detail. But try out another church with hope and faith, not with counter-arguments in your mind.
Insecurity is not a good thing in a belief argument, Rot.

[quote=”Rot”]
On the contrary. I am simply asking you to provide a shred of evidence that what you believe might be true, or to perhaps explain why there is a complete lack of evidence that supports your belief. The reason we can never prove or disprove that God exists is because we do not know how or where evidence of God would manifest. This is completely different with the Book of Mormon. We know exactly how and where evidence of the Book of Mormon would manifest, and we also know that it has not manifested. I don't ask for absolute proof. I ask for any evidence at all. [/quote]
Joseph Smith was told in revelation of a Civil War.
A Civil War occurred after his death.
Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon is true.
Since a Civil War occurred then Joseph Smith is not a liar.
Since Joseph Smith is not a liar, the Book of Mormon is true.
Deductive reasoning doesn’t seem absolute in this case 
Evidence of a species of little horses in America before the conquistadors both shows that they can be intelligently explained in the Book of Mormon and that it is not possible for a species to die out fast.
Steel found in America shows it was not impossible for them to fashion items out of steel.
We also know that traveling to the Americas on a boat is possible, even more so back then because of Continental Drift and plate tectonics.
We find people in the Western half of the United States, where the Book of Mormon tells some of the people headed.
It seems I have about as many points as you to (and none less compelling than yours could be accepted either) prove my religion right. A couple of unexplained items doesn’t make or break a religion.

[quote=”Rot”]
But I am being fair, because I can provide hundreds of examples of the Bible being supported by historical and archeological evidence. The Bible is considered a historically accurate document when the super natural is ignored. The Book of Mormon is not. [/quote]
People went out to try to prove the bible was right. Similar people set out to prove the Book of Mormon is wrong. It doesn’t seem hard to make the general public to believe that the people who showed the bible was wrong couldn’t possibly be wrong when saying it was true because mainly they didn’t believe it.

[quote=”Rot”]
Perhaps if you'd actually read my points, you'd know that this is not what I'm asking of you. [/quote]
But that is what you’re asking me, you know exactly that that’s what you’re asking me to do.

[quote=”Rot”]
Don't trust me. Trust the hundreds of thousands, even millions, of archeologists and historians and written historical documents which contradict what is said in the Book of Mormon. [/quote]
Don’t trust me. Trust the hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people across the world which have had these great and powerful experiences and know what they are doing is right. And will not be deterred by those who are too insecure about their own beliefs to set out their life to trying to prove others wrong.

[quote=”Rot”]
Were you even listening to what I said!? We aren't jealous of you! We're saddened because you're going to Hell. It is depressing to think about! There won't be any laughing in Heaven about all you Mormons! This isn't some big joke, Chuckles. Read my freaking posts before you stick your foot in your mouth! [/quote] Oh, so, you’re Christian now?
So what you’re saying, as I believe is that. The Mormon man who has committed no crime in his life, and has been a good person, nice and generous to all, and has done his best to right any wrongs he has inadvertently caused is going to go to hell while the Christians/Baptist/Buddhist/Jewish man who has killed, lied, stolen, hurt, cheated is going to heaven just because has a bible in his bedroom and has said to be a part of this religion.
You are saying that no matter what I do in my life, no matter what type of person I am, that I am going to Hell because I believe a few extra things than you do. Do you think anyone would join a religion, believing they are going to Hell no matter who they were?
You are also wording it in a way saying that you have a sure spot for you in Heaven, no matter what you do. You obviously don’t believe that religion can cause some to go/stop a person from going to heaven. Which contradicts what you have suggested above, as you don’t belong to a religion.
You think this is a joke to me! I’m a Mormon because I believe that it makes sense, I believe that a person’s life shouldn’t be wasted trying to prove others wrong, but rather, trying to strengthen the faith of themselves and trying to find the meaning of life. Whatever church is to you, whether it be proving others wrong, listen to some random guy shout at you, rock out for a couple hours, whatever. Actually having a meaningful church experience makes sense to me. The prospect that being a good person is more important than hearing the gospel, that you can repent, because we all make mistakes, makes sense to me. Life should not be about joining a certain religion, and then “whippie!” you’re saved, I believe it should be about being the best you can believe.
You are now a mystery. You just barely stated you believe that I’m going to hell because I’m Mormon, but above you said you didn’t think you should be saved or not because of religion. Contradiction.

[quote=”Rot”]
Actually, I've asked you to simply support your religion with support, and I've already brought forward plenty of evidence which could prove your religion wrong.[/quote]
Well, there you have it. No, you have about as much points to say this probably couldn’t have happened as I do to say this probably could’ve.

And this is what happens when an unstoppable force meets and immovable object.

Chuckles wrote:2nd Nephi 25-27 (if I'm not accidentally leaving out a little)
Talking about the destruction of Jerusalem, not anything special, except it also mentions the exact time period that it was proven that Jerusalem was destroyed.

You know, it isn't prophecy if the book became public knowledge after the event occurred.

Chuckles wrote:Talks about how it is built up again. As we both know this happened too, no biggie.

And it isn't prophecy if it was already prophesied in the Bible. Ezekiel 37 pretty much covers the recovery of Israel.

Chuckles wrote:Talks about how a Book of Mormon will come forth.

And it isn't a prophecy if, were the event not to occur, the prophecy wouldn't even be considered in the first place.

Chuckles wrote:You may say this is just Joseph Smith trying to increase credibility, but it is one of the Isaiah chapters, I'll post the exact one next post.

Isaiah prophecies the Book of Mormon? This I'd like to see.

Chuckles wrote:Talks about how 3 witnesses will testify of the brass plates.

Which actually seems more to support the fact that the 3 witnesses may not have been so truthful and left the church to build up creditability, ironically.

Chuckles wrote:^ There's more, if you want. But that's just from the top of my head, and from a mere two chapters.

Let's see some real prophecy in the next post. Like stuff that actually happened after Joseph Smith's time, and that wasn't already prophesied about in the Bible.

Chuckles wrote:Also, in the D&C, I forget the sections (but will try to find out). Joseph Smith talks about a civil war to come, Soviet Union/communism (whatever) falling. And...a couple others I believe.

Well then, you'd best go grab the scriptures themselves. I'd like to read those for myself.

Chuckles wrote:Good to see you actually know what you're talking about

Well, does it, or does it not?

Chuckles wrote:Ah...but what you don't know that archaeologists have found evidence of a type of mini-horse living in North America at this time. So they could know what a horse is, but still describe the animals that the conquistadors bring massive beasts, and finally get a name for them.

...and so you are saying that the horses that pull chariots and carry warriors in the Book of Mormon are actually ponies? Your arguments are becoming desperate, Chuckles.

Chuckles wrote:But, if we want to. You can make a future generation completely oblivious to the fact that something was ever made. It takes a lot of work, yes, but it is possible. Even more so if God truly wants this done.

I doubt it. You'd need the absolute cooperation of the entire people, and even then, you'd have to completely wipe out many historical documents. And we again come to the why. Why the hell would they just abandon their technology. What possible reason could they have? Why would God want to erase evidence of one book but not another?

Chuckles wrote:Just so I know you aren't hiding behind some Baptist minister telling you this. I want you to give me exact scriptural quotes from the Book of Mormon telling that their weapons were made of steel. And not necessarily

From what little research I can be bothered to do, without an actual copy of the book itself or a working knowledge of where I would find what, I have found a handful of references to steel, such as

Second Nephi 5 wrote:¹⁵And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

which refers to ores such as steel as being in great abundance, and also

Jarom 1 wrote:⁸And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war—yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.

Chuckles wrote:I promise I'll answer this later...I'm too tired right now to think much at all...I probably shouldn't even be typing a reply now.

Noted.

Chuckles wrote:To quote you quoting scripture: "God does not change"

But if God does not change, then what about when he was a man. Was he perfect then? And if not, when he became God, did he instantly become perfect? If so, when men become gods, do they instantly become perfect?

Chuckles wrote:No I'm saying that things make sense if what I believe is true, is true. Therefore, I believe I'm perfectly fine in my wording.

But you are further arguing that because it is true, you can use that as evidence of it being true. The validity of the book is being called into question. It's like when people try to argue that the Bible is true because the Bible says that the Bible is true. For people who don't believe in the Bible, this is not evidence enough that the Bible is true. You must then point out other things about the Bible, other than it saying it is true, to prove that it is true.

Chuckles wrote:Effective, no? But why did you place it in your post if you had nothing to say?

Also a logical fallacy. I try not to prune posts, which is why it appeared at the top of one of the quotes.

Chuckles wrote:So…you’re saying the Book of Mormon is the work of the devil.

I am saying that if there was an angel, then yes, it was, just as Paul predicted such things would occur. Frankly, I would say the same about the angel that appeared to Mohammed concerning the corruption of Christianity and the necessity of creating Islam.

Chuckles wrote:You can’t have it both ways Rot. Either the biases you are told on Sunday affect your Monday-Saturday, or those you have made for yourself on Monday-Saturday affect you on Sunday.
Actually, we just believe different verses mean different things, kind of like you said you didn’t agree with how the Baptist church interprets certain verses.

There's a touch of a difference. The verses we disagree on aren't ambiguous at all, so you just call them translated incorrectly. The areas denominations disagree on are a touch more ambiguous. One of the primary disagreements is the whole rapture. Because a pre-Tribulation Rapture is based on a single verse in Revelation that doesn't even directly say anything about it, it is a point of contention among denominations. But Paul was pretty clear that if anyone, including angels, preached anything other than the New Testament Bible, that he was lying.

Chuckles wrote:Your sole argument is pretending to know exactly what ancient people would do in a land that they knew nothing about in a time period we know nothing about.

But we do know about it. Archeologists have spent lifetimes learning about it. We actually know quite a bit about the times that the Book of Mormon was supposed to have occurred. It just so happens that most everything we do know contradicts what the Book of Mormon says. This makes sense, since we didn't know about this time period back when Joseph Smith was alive. If the Book of Mormon was true, archeology and observed history would not blatantly contradict it in such a way.

Chuckles wrote:And there we have it. You have just proved you are insecure about your own beliefs because you feel you need to prove me and anyone else who doesn’t believe what you do wrong in any way possible. You don’t want to prove me wrong, you need to prove me wrong. Religion is not trying to prove others wrong, it’s believing in what you think is right.

I don't recall starting this thread. In fact, I don't even recall coming into here with the express purpose of proving everyone who disagrees with me wrong. As I recall, I came in here to express my opinion of a particular religion, which you then set out to prove wrong.

But yes, I would like to prove other religions wrong, because I have been taught that people who do not believe in the Christ, and not one that they have crafted after their own desires, are not going to Heaven, and this distresses me greatly.

Chuckles wrote:I don’t know, you may not have joined another religion because you are picky about some details, don’t want to in the case that this religion is wrong, or some other detail. But try out another church with hope and faith, not with counter-arguments in your mind.

Hope and faith is what I believe in, but the Bible is clear that there is one path to Heaven, and that this path is narrow and few take it, and that all others burn in Hell.

Chuckles wrote:Insecurity is not a good thing in a belief argument, Rot.

I don't see how I'm being insecure about my faith. If anything, distress about your fate would be a sign that I am quite secure in my faith. I mean, I'm not very secure about any particular denomination, but I feel quite strongly that Christianity as a whole, and the Bible, is correct, and that I am going to Heaven.

Chuckles wrote:Joseph Smith was told in revelation of a Civil War.
A Civil War occurred after his death.
Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon is true.
Since a Civil War occurred then Joseph Smith is not a liar.
Since Joseph Smith is not a liar, the Book of Mormon is true.

First of all, you still need to provide the reference from the Book of Mormon foretelling of the American Civil War. Second of all, proving that one thing is not a lie does not automatically clear all other things.

Chuckles wrote:Deductive reasoning doesn’t seem absolute in this case 
Evidence of a species of little horses in America before the conquistadors both shows that they can be intelligently explained in the Book of Mormon and that it is not possible for a species to die out fast.

I'd like to see the references to this evidence. I'd also like to see how the possibility that there may have been some sort of pony proves that the battle horses of the Book of Mormon just suddenly disappeared and were completely forgotten.

Chuckles wrote:Steel found in America shows it was not impossible for them to fashion items out of steel.

Fashioning weapons out of steel isn't quite as easy as finding steel. You have to smelt it, and the natives did not have the capabilities to do so.

Chuckles wrote:We also know that traveling to the Americas on a boat is possible, even more so back then because of Continental Drift and plate tectonics.

Considering the survival rates for when we did travel by boat. The reason the Vikings reached here was through a series of pit stops across the north Atlantic: Norway>Scottland>Iceland>Greenland>Canada. Sailing across the Atlantic from Israel to Mexico would be next impossible. Especially considering that the Book of Mormon is supposed to take place before the inventions that made sailing across the ocean even slightly viable.

Chuckles wrote:We find people in the Western half of the United States, where the Book of Mormon tells some of the people headed.

Ya...and we knew there were people there before Joseph Smith was born, so I don't see the significance here.

Chuckles wrote:It seems I have about as many points as you to (and none less compelling than yours could be accepted either) prove my religion right. A couple of unexplained items doesn’t make or break a religion.

I wouldn't exactly call your points "compelling." "Half-baked" sounds about right.

Chuckles wrote:People went out to try to prove the bible was right. Similar people set out to prove the Book of Mormon is wrong. It doesn’t seem hard to make the general public to believe that the people who showed the bible was wrong couldn’t possibly be wrong when saying it was true because mainly they didn’t believe it.

I don't see your point. There are similar people trying to prove the Book of Mormon is right, but they run into a brick wall when it comes to historical accuracy. And there are similar people trying to prove that the Bible is wrong, but they run into a brick wall when it comes to historical accuracy as well.

Chuckles wrote:But that is what you’re asking me, you know exactly that that’s what you’re asking me to do.

Nope. As I've already pointed out, I'm not asking you to absolutely prove your religion, but rather to refute the holes in your religion. There is a big difference, primarily in scale.

Chuckles wrote:Don’t trust me. Trust the hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people across the world which have had these great and powerful experiences and know what they are doing is right. And will not be deterred by those who are too insecure about their own beliefs to set out their life to trying to prove others wrong.

Which is ironic, because Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and every other religion can say the same thing. It may not concern you that, according to your religion, because I will not have a secret name, no one will be able to call me into Heaven and I'll spend eternity in Hell, but it does concern me that, according to my religion, because you have not accepted the Jesus taught about in the Bible, opting instead for a very different Jesus taught about in the Book of Mormon, that you will spend eternity in Hell.

Chuckles wrote:Oh, so, you’re Christian now?
So what you’re saying, as I believe is that. The Mormon man who has committed no crime in his life, and has been a good person, nice and generous to all, and has done his best to right any wrongs he has inadvertently caused is going to go to hell while the Christians/Baptist/Buddhist/Jewish man who has killed, lied, stolen, hurt, cheated is going to heaven just because has a bible in his bedroom and has said to be a part of this religion.

Romans 3 wrote:^{For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God.}

So no, the Mormon man is not perfect enough to get into Heaven on his own. But no, not every self-proclaimed Christian is getting in, either.

Matthew 7 wrote:[sup]21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. ²²Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? ²³And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Revelation 3 wrote:¹⁴And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; ¹⁵I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. ¹⁶So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. ¹⁷Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: ¹⁸I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. ¹⁹As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. ²⁰Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. ²¹To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. ²²He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Chuckles wrote:You are saying that no matter what I do in my life, no matter what type of person I am, that I am going to Hell because I believe a few extra things than you do.

A few extra things is a bit of an understatement. You believe that Jesus is a separate being from God, that despite the Bible clearly saying that Jesus's second coming to Earth would mark the end times, Jesus apparently comes to Earth several more times to North America, that there are many gods, not just God, and that God was once man and that men can become gods themselves. For Heaven's sake, your a polytheist! That isn't a "few extra things" my friend.

And if you believe in the Bible, you shouldn't be so surprised at the difficulty in getting into Heaven, since it is a very clear and recurring theme in the Bible.

Isaiah 64 wrote:⁶But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

The Bible is very clear that no man is "good enough" to get into Heaven.

Mark 10 wrote:¹⁸And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.

Chuckles wrote:Do you think anyone would join a religion, believing they are going to Hell no matter who they were?

You realize that this is a fundamental belief of all Christianity, right?

Chuckles wrote:You are also wording it in a way saying that you have a sure spot for you in Heaven, no matter what you do.

Sort of.

1 Corinthians 10 wrote:²³All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

Paul makes it pretty clear that because we are Christians, there is nothing we can do to not get to Heaven, but also makes it clear that those who believe that Christianity is just a get out of jail free card and continue in sin are not truly Christians, for they have not truly accepted Christ as their savior.

Romans 6 wrote:¹What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? ²God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Chuckles wrote:You obviously don’t believe that religion can cause some to go/stop a person from going to heaven.

Quite the opposite. Religion can be the very thing that stops a man from getting to Heaven.

Chuckles wrote:Which contradicts what you have suggested above, as you don’t belong to a religion.

And when did I say that? You're confusing religion and denomination. I am a Christian, particularly of the fundamental sort. I don't subscribe to any particular denomination, but I absolutely believe in the Bible and its teachings.

Chuckles wrote:You think this is a joke to me! I’m a Mormon because I believe that it makes sense, I believe that a person’s life shouldn’t be wasted trying to prove others wrong, but rather, trying to strengthen the faith of themselves and trying to find the meaning of life. Whatever church is to you, whether it be proving others wrong, listen to some random guy shout at you, rock out for a couple hours, whatever. Actually having a meaningful church experience makes sense to me. The prospect that being a good person is more important than hearing the gospel, that you can repent, because we all make mistakes, makes sense to me. Life should not be about joining a certain religion, and then “whippie!” you’re saved, I believe it should be about being the best you can believe.
You are now a mystery. You just barely stated you believe that I’m going to hell because I’m Mormon, but above you said you didn’t think you should be saved or not because of religion. Contradiction.

My purpose in life is not to set out and prove everyone wrong. And frankly, proving others wrong and growing stronger in your own religion are not mutually exclusive as you seem to think. In order to argue your own beliefs without bending, you must actually understand them quite deeply. If I were a weak Christian, insecure like you seem to think, I would back down on points frequently, and you probably wouldn't seem me quoting the scripture left and right. I might make some passes at your religion, but they would be poorly executed (sort of like your refutation of my points) and would break under tension.

Chuckles wrote:Well, there you have it. No, you have about as much points to say this probably couldn’t have happened as I do to say this probably could’ve.

Which isn't true. I just wish there was a third party which belonged to neither religion to point out the fallacies you've convinced yourself with. Maybe we can get Recon in here to read through our arguments. He's an atheist, so he won't be biased towards any of us. Maybe having an unbiased (or at least, not biased against you any more than against your opponent) source point out how weak your arguments are might do better to convince you than I can.

Chuckles wrote:And this is what happens when an unstoppable force meets and immovable object.

Yes. I do believe the term for what you are talking about is called "denial."

Why are you guys getting in a fight over religion? Rot you believe one thing Chuckles you believe another. No matter what you say to the other person they are never going to admit they are wrong.

It seems like Rot is trying to make chuckles an atheist and Chuckles is trying to convert Rot.

I find it better just to leave religion out of it. Chuckles is happy. Let him be happy. If he wants to leave the Mormon Church later on he can but it will be his decision and should not have any influence from anyone else.

Rot, the great thing about religion is you need to have faith. Believing in something that can not be proven right. Believing that there is something after death meaning our lives have worth. Why are you trying to take this away from this kid?

I suggest we leave it at that. Besides this really belongs in the debate forum.

I'm not trying to make Chuckles an atheist, silly. I'd say that I'm trying to convert him, and he's trying to defend his religion.

And I understand faith. I've never asserted that Christianity can be 100% proven, and frankly, in all of the other religious debates, I've come to the conclusion that the most logical position one can reach based on facts is that of agnosticism. I'm simply saying that the religion Chuckles has chosen to have faith in is one that has some serious holes that need to be addressed.